CHIDANANDA ULLAL, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner, a retired Sheristedar in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Holenarasipura, had originally challenged the order dated 23. 12. 1993, copy at Annexure-D to the Writ Petition, passed by the first respondent High Court (on the administrative side), which came to be passed due to certain irregularities in the matter of fixation of his pay in the hands of the Office of the then civil Judge and JMFC at Holenarasipur and further the consequential notice dated 4. 8. 1998, issued by the 5th respondent-Tahsildar, hassan, copy at Annexure-G to the Writ Petition notifying the recovery of Rs. 16,388. 40 ps as arrears of land revenue. The petitioner since died after the filing of the Writ Petition, his legal reprsentatives were brought on record. ( 2 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri Nanja Reddy, hadtaken me through the facts of the case. While urging the grounds set out in the Writ Petition he argued that neither the immediate employer of the original petitioner-respondent No. 3 nerein or for that matter the Controlling Officer-Respondent No. 2 herein, have ever heard the original party before passing the impugned order at annexure-D to the Writ Petition, in passing whereof, the respondent no, 1 had ordered for recovery of excess pay paid to the original petitioner for the period from 1. 1. 1982 till his retirement on 31. 3. 1985 occasioned due to the reason of wrong stepping up of his pay on 1,1,1982 and further for quashing of the consequential order issued by the 5th respondent - Tahsildar for recovery of Rs. 16,388-40ps as arrears of land revenue, copy is at Annexure-G to the Writ Petition. ( 3 ) IT was also pointed out by Sri Nanja Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioners that the original petitioner had retired from service on 31. 3. 1985 and that during the pendency of the Writ petition before this Court the original Writ Petitioner Sri A, Shama rao, died due to accident and his legal heirs have been brought on record as Petitioner Nos. 1 (a) to (c ). 3. 1985 and that during the pendency of the Writ petition before this Court the original Writ Petitioner Sri A, Shama rao, died due to accident and his legal heirs have been brought on record as Petitioner Nos. 1 (a) to (c ). It was also argued by him that the original petitioner was not issued with any notice either by the 3rd respondent - Civil Judge ( Senior Division ) at Holenarasipura or for that matter by the 2nd respondent - the District and Sessions judge at Hassan or for that matter by the High Court on the administrative side and that as one could see the impugned order at Annexure-D to the Writ Petition it is clear therefore, that the same came to be passed by the High Court on the administrative side, without there being any opportunity afforded to the original petitioner of being heard and that the impugned order came to be passed for the sole reason that the audit party deputed by the first respondent - High Court to audit the accounts of the Office of then Civil Judge and JMFC at Holenarasipura have observed in its audit report that the pay of the original petitioner had wrongly been stepped up from 1. 1. 1982 and fixed with reference to the pay of one Sri S. Appaji, also a Sheristhedar then. It appears that the pay of the said Sri S. Appaji, was higher than that of the original petitioner though he was junior in service to that of the original petitioner and because of that anomaly the pay of the original petitioner came to be stepped up with effect from 1. 1. 1982. Right below the impugned order passed by the High Court on the administrative side, Annexure-D to Writ petition, also came to be endorsed by way of memo by the Chief administrative Officer, Office of the District and Sessions Court, hassan, to the Civil Judge and JMFC, Arasikere, under whom the original petitioner was working as Sheristedar at the relevant point of lime for effecting recovery of the excess payment of the salary. ( 4 ) IT was also argued by Sri Nanja Reddy that the original petioner had not committed any error in law, inasmuch as, it was not bat on his mis-representation to the authorities nor he obtained pecuniary benefit by way of stepping up his salary with reference to the salary of his Junior one Sri S. Appaji, who was also a Sheristedar at that point of time. According to him it was because of the mistake occurred in the hands of his Drawing Officer and Controlling Officer, civil Judge and JMFC, Holenarasipura and as such the original petitioner had no role to play. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned o'rder passed by the first respondent, copy at Annexure-D to the Writ Petition, and further consequential order issued by the 5th respondent-Tahsildar for recovery of the excess amount of Rs. 16,388. 40 Ps from the original petitioner by deducting the same as land revenue, are. liable to be quashed by this Court by allowing the instant Writ Petition. ( 5 ) FURTHER the learned Counsel for the petitioner had also cited before me the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of SAHIB ram vs STATE OF HARYANA. While taking me through the said decision it was also pointed out by Sri Nanja Reddy that in almost similar circumstances the Apex Court held that the benefit of higher pay scale given to the appellant in the said case, by wrong construction of the Rules made by the Principal of his College could not be held a fault on his part and as such the amount paid till date might not be recovered from the appellant. According to Mr. Reddy, the decision in the said case has got total application to the facts and circumstances of the instant case on hand. ( 6 ) IN this context, it is worth quoting what the Supreme Court observed in Para-5 of the Judgment. The same reads as hereunder:"admittedly, the appellant does not possess the required educational qualifications. Under the circumstances the appellant would not be entitled to the relaxation. The Principal erred in granting him the relaxation. Since the date of relaxation the appellant had been paid his salary on the revised scale. The same reads as hereunder:"admittedly, the appellant does not possess the required educational qualifications. Under the circumstances the appellant would not be entitled to the relaxation. The Principal erred in granting him the relaxation. Since the date of relaxation the appellant had been paid his salary on the revised scale. However, ;t is not on account of any misrepresentation made by the appellant that the benefit of the higher pay scale was given to him but by wrong construction made by the Principal for which the appellant cannot be held to be at fault. Under the circumstances the amount paid till date may not be recovered from the appellant. The principle of equal pay for equal work would not apply to the scales prescribed by the University Grants commission. The appeal is allowed partly without any order as to costs. " ( 7 ) ON the other hand, Sri Mahabaleshwara Goud, the learned addi. Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5, supported the impugned order passed by the High Court - ficst respondent herein, copy at Annexure-A to the Writ Petition and pursuant recovery notice issued, by the 5th respondent - Tahsildar for recovery of the excess amount of Rs. 16,388. 40 Ps from the original petitioner by way of land revenue. ( 8 ) IT was further argued by the learned Additional Government advocate Sri Goud, that the impugned order at Annexure-A to the writ Petition, came to be passed by the High Court for the reason that its Audit Party during the course of Audit of the accounts of the concerned Court had pointed out that the original petitioner was paid wrongly higher rate of pay on the basis that a Junior of his by name sri S Appaji, was paid higher rate of pay at the relevant point of time- it was also added by him that the salary of the said Sri S. Appaji, originally fixed by the authorities came to be scalled down as the salary in respect of the said official was. also wrongly fixed and that the said amount was very well recovered by the authorities. also wrongly fixed and that the said amount was very well recovered by the authorities. According to him, there was a justification on the part of the High court in passing the impugned Order to recover the excess payment of the salary to the original petitioner, particularly when the same was based on the Audit report of the Audit party. Therefore, he prayed that the instant Writ Petition be dismissed. ( 9 ) I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by both the parties. It is an admitted fact that the first respondent - High court had passed the impugned order at Annexure-D to Writ Petition, solely based on the report of the Audit Party. As pointed out by the learned Additional Government Advocate, that there was justification on the part of the High Court to hold that the original petitioner was paid in excess, particularly when his junior one Sri S. Appaji, had wrongly been paid more pay at the relevant point of time by way of fixation of his pay and that the same came to be well recovered from him. But one thing is clear to me that in the instant case the first respondent - High Court had passed the said order without even hearing the original petitioner. At best, it appears to me that the first respondent could pass such an order for recovery only, after issuing notice to the original petitioner and further affording him an opportunity of being heard. When that had not been done by the first respondent - High Court, in my considered view the first respondent - High Court on the administrative side had entered an error in passing the impugned order straight away to recover the excess salary from he original petitioner solely based on the ground that its Audit Party, at the time of audit of the accounts of the office of the original petitioner noticed certain irregularities in the matter of wrong fixation of his pay as on 1. 1,1982. According to me, the least in the circumstances, what the first respondent - High Court on the administrative side would have done was to issue a notice and hear in that regard and afforded in original Writ Petitioner an opportunity to have his say. 1,1982. According to me, the least in the circumstances, what the first respondent - High Court on the administrative side would have done was to issue a notice and hear in that regard and afforded in original Writ Petitioner an opportunity to have his say. ( 10 ) IT also appears to me that it is quite possible that the Audit party which had audited the records of the concerned Court wherein the original petitioner was working, also might have entered into an error and that error probably the original petitioner would have pointed out had he been issued with notice either by the first respondent- High Court on the administrative side or the Authorities below it. ( 11 ) THEREFORE, in the facts and circumstances of the case, in my considered view, the first respondent - High Court on its administrative side, had entered into an error in passing the impugned order at annexure-A straight away based on the audit report of the audit party. Therefore it is obvious that the consequential order issued by the 5th respondent - Tahsildar, to recover a sum of Rs. 16,388. 40ps by way of land revenue has also to be held invalid. ( 12 ) AS stated above, the learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri nanja Reddy, had cited before me a reported decision of the supreme Court in 1995 Supp (1) SCC 18, referred to in Para-5 supra. Having gone through the said decision in detail, I do not think the said decision is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. That, I say for, in the absence of the details as to what role the original petitioner had played in the year 1982 in the matter of stepping up of his pay. One cannot forget here that the original petitioner since working as Sheristhedar in the Office of the Civil Judge and JMFC at Holenarasipur, he was an Officer immediately below him and as such quite possible he must have moved his Officer for the said purpose. It is to be noted here that, it is not the case of the original petitioner in filing the instant Writ Petition that the Civil Judge and JMFC on his own in the matter of fixation of his salary stepped up his pay in the year 1982. It is to be noted here that, it is not the case of the original petitioner in filing the instant Writ Petition that the Civil Judge and JMFC on his own in the matter of fixation of his salary stepped up his pay in the year 1982. As I see, in the above decision cited by Sri Nanja Reddy, it was case the Principal of the College suo motu fixed the pay scale to the Librarian at the higher grate by mis-construing the Rules applicable to him and as such the latter had done nothing in that regard. Hence, I feel that it is not correct to argue by Mr. Reddy that the decision cited by him squarely applies to the case in hand. ( 13 ) IN the change of circumstance it is quite possible that the first respondent - High Court on its administrative side may now think of issuing show cause notice to the legal representatives of the original petitioner-P (a) to (c) herein, in the matter of recovery of the excess salary paid to the original petitioner, he being the husband of petitioner (a) and the petitioners (b) and (c) being his sons. One cannot forget here that the original petitioner having retired from service long back in he year 1985, suffered a tragic death on 17. 8. 1999 in an accident. Probably this is a case to show mercy on the bereaved family of the deceased, more so, when the sum in question was not paid in one lump to the original petitioner, but paid to him every month over a long period from 1. 1. 1982 to 31. 3. 1985, that too, more than 15 years or so ago. All the more, it is now left to the decision and wisdom of the first respondent- High Court on its administrative side as to how it has to proceed in the' matter of recovery of the sum in question, at this late stage. ( 14 ) IN that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the first respondent - High Court, copy at Annexure-D to the Writ Petition and further consequential order issued by the 5th respondent - tahsildar for recovery of a sum of Rs. 16,388. ( 14 ) IN that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the first respondent - High Court, copy at Annexure-D to the Writ Petition and further consequential order issued by the 5th respondent - tahsildar for recovery of a sum of Rs. 16,388. 40 Ps by way of land revenue from the original petitioner, at Annexure-G to the Writ petition, stand quashed, in the result the rule issued in this Write petition made absolute. CUJ; 8. 6. 2001 order ON 'being SPOKEN TO' in W. P. No. 9700/1999 (S-RES) 1. This matter had come up before Court for 'being spoken to. 2. "the learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri P. M. Nanja Reddy submitted that at line No. 3 of para (14) instead of mentioning therein as Annexure 'd', it had been wrongly shown as Annexure 'a'. Court also submitted that the mistake that had occurred in para (14) as above, has to be corrected. 4. In view of the above, the following: "annexure 'a' mentioned in line No. 3 of para (14) of the final order that came to be passed on 7. 3. 2001 stands corrected as annexure 'd'. " 5. The above correction is made to correct the order and to keep the records straight. 6. Let the order herein passed be treated as a corrigendum to the original order and always be treated as part and parcel of the original order in the Writ Petition. --- *** --- .